‘Eyes’ as such cannot be experienced. There could be thoughts, images about the eyes, but eyes as such cannot be found. Can you see the difference?
Yes. There are sensations, and there are visual images. This happens. The connection with the eyes is the sense of location, which is thoughtcontent.
Eyes are a concept. They can’t be experienced as such.
There is no AE of eyes. Can you see this?
Yes. The seeming location of the eye is an illusion, a thoughtcontent.
This is a learned knowledge. But is this really the case?
As we speak of the eye as concept, “the eye” can’t provide anything. It doesn’t exist in AE.
I can see I still am fooled by the use of language. I thought it wasn’t a problem, but now I see how it can strengthen the illusion.
What does AE show about eyes providing the visual image?
Nothing. The seeming connection between the visual image and the ‘felt’ location is the illusion.
How the ‘eyes providing the visual image’ is experienced?
It isn’t. It is the illusion. The visual image is there. It is experienced.
I tried to describe the distinction between the experience of the visual image and the mental image. So ‘eyes providing a visual image’ is a manner of speaking, in this case used to point to a distinction. So there is no experience of ‘eyes providing…’, only an experience of visual image or mental image.
Does seeing every really happens?
Ah. That is when the proces of seeing seems complete. Ha ha. The proces of seeing is not happening, only the thoughts arising with content label and recognition.
What is the AE of ‘light’?
Nothing. It is a word, a concept. There is a visual image, or not.
What is the AE of light causing or making ‘visual images’?
Just because there is labelling and recognition, does this suddenly make or create ‘seeing’?
No. As above. Seeing is a seeming proces. It doesn’t happen as such in AE, only as thoughtcontent.
What is the AE of ‘eyes moving around the object”?
Nothing. It is a description. In AE there are sensations and visual images. Also thoughts about the sensations and images. The sensation of “moving” is in fact all seperate sensations. The same for the visual images.
Can this be experienced at all?
Not in AE. Because this is an interpretation.
What makes this sense or feeling of the sight being in front of the eyes/head/body?
Very interesting. When I had finished reading the question, the answer was immediately available and clear. Now I need to try and write it down.
So that was a thought arising with a certain content. Now lets look if it can be “seen”.
Seeing is the whole proces, the conclusion or interpretation of all the sense experiences happening. When looking I experience a visual image. I go back to the supposed seer. Than the sensations supposedly located in the eyes are noticed. So most part of attention is directed towards that "place". This is what makes it as if it is in front of the eyes/body. But the eyes and body are mental constructs. So the conclusion that a certain sight is seen before the body/eyes, is a projection, a mental construct, a thoughtcontent. In AE only sensations, visual images and thoughts happen/arise. Those are all seperate events. That what is seen is a thoughtcontent about a certain visual image, and other experiences happening, all fused together in an illusion "seeing". Visual images appear to come from the eye. The eye is part of the body. It seems to have a fixed location. The illusion "seeing" is habitually connected to the illusion of "the location of the eyes", which is another illusion. So this is about the illusion(s) believed.
What makes this sense or feeling that the mental images is happening in front of the eyes/head?
Concentrating on a mental image, I experience sensations that seem to be located in eyes. So the same happens as desribed with a visual image, only instead of a visual image, there is a mental image. It it still projection. Now specifically paying attention to the supposed "I" seeing it: more faded, less intense. Attention goes to other sensations as well. As long as there is a supposed seer, there is attention on sensations "in the eye". That illusion of location stays around. There is a feeling of an urge to investigate the mental image. Those are thoughtcontent. It reinforces the mental image as it were. In fact a new mental image is created. This is also thoughtcontent. It is in the thoughtcontent that the image appears before the eyes. It is an illusion.
Which sensation seems/feels to be the seer?
At several "places" in "the body" there are sensations arising. Apart from those sensations, there is nothing there. Those sensations seem to point to "me".
When looking for that “me” doing the supposedly seeing of the mental image, the attention shifts to other sensations. When looking precisely, the mental image gets a little more attention again. At the same time there is still sensations noticed. Now a looker appears to notice who is doing the seeing. Ah, a “new” looker has appeared! Now “I” am confused. Where to look? Ha ha.
What an amazing illusion! Can you see this?
I would say "a very convincing illusion". That is because of strong sensations arising in "the eyes". The sensations as such do not draw the attention. But the mental image seems to. So the attention goes to the mental image. The sensations are felt, but get very little attention. The combination of the two (or those two happening simultaneously) is so strong that they seem unsepperable from the thoughts about them (thought includes all mental activity).
When I focus on the seeing, the strength of the mental image fades a little. Thoughts ignored is now doable and the mental image is no longer in front of "me", but gets unlocatable.
Which sensation seems to be the feeler?
Ok, feeling chosen. Then, looking for the feeler. "I" feel. In the body appear other sensations, or other sensations are noticed. Especialy in the axis throat, heart, stomach. They seems to be designed to attract attention towards the fact that there is a body, this body. But they are only sensations, nothing more. And there are thoughts with the content "I am this body". They are both not the feeler.
Is the looker the feeler? Looking and feeling are distinct events, in this case happening at the same time. When focused at the looker, there appears another looker, looking at the looker (or, the sensation that before was labelled as looker, but now seems to be not-existing anymore).
As soon as the thougt appears with content "where is the looker?" a subject-object distinction seems to happen. There appears/arises another looker etc. "That what was looking before" is never found, is nowhere to find. It has disappeared. (the feeling is no longer noticed) (this is an amazing illusion!).
What makes this sensation seems/feels to be the feeler?
I now try to describe how the "looker" seems to be the feeler. It is a bit of a guessing game. Looking seems to happen. But the only "things" that can be experienced are a sensation and mental images and thoughts about looking and feeling. The looker seems to reside in the brain/head/eyes.
The looker seems to be the feeler because it is distinct from that what is felt. It seems to be at another location so to speak. There defenately seems to be a distance between subject and object.
The felt sensations associated with “me” seem the strongest in the axis throat, heart, belly. The “looker” seems to be in the head. Those sensations appear to draw the attention towards the body as “my body, me”. There arises a thought with that content.